Main Arguments: Bitzer in this piece talks a lot about the meaning of a rhetorical situation, and what it actually means, attempting to shed light on the topic. Then he moves on to how a situation derives from the existent of an occurrence. In some points stating that in order there to be a rhetorical situation, there must be a “response to a situation” or discourse.   Bitzer states in the passage that “discourse is rhetorical insofar as it functions (or seeks to function) as a fitting response to a situation which needs and invites it”. This was one of the biggest themes that I picked on while reading the passage. He goes on to elaborate on that point that the discourse or arguments need to fit the situation that it is addressing, and connects that to the point of “positive change” later on in the paper. Meaning that in rhetorical situations, the discourse should work in connection with the audience to offer persuasion. An example would be with the point about a eulogy writer writing eulogies for imaginary people, the discourse in that case does not fit the situation, as the notions of writing eulogies for people who don’t exist as pointless. He also mentions “These three constituents — exigence, audience, constraints —comprise everything relevant in a rhetorical situation”, talking about how the relationships between them shape discourse.

Response: In my opinion his end note was very bold, stating that although there is “scientific merit” to rhetoric there is no “practical discipline”, and that it is more than just persuasion alone. I think that his conclusion is basically saying that in the world we live in rhetoric cannot be simple a means of persuasion, as exigence and Kairos have to strong an effect on discourse itself. I feel that he talks about a lot of different aspects of rhetoric, while defining what a rhetorical situation actually is. I personally thought that the notion that the event “invites” the appropriate response is very important. It is such a simple concept, however people often overlook it. I interpreted his message as “does your response correctly fit the question being asked”. What I liked about the piece was the way he used examples to elaborate on his ideas, such as talking about JFK’s death, with the contrasting notion of the man just writing fake eulogies; it enhanced his argument.

Question: So is the authors overall underlying message that due to the circumstances in the world, in terms of exigence and Kairos, rhetoric will never simply be for objective use?

Emma Watson Speech:

Exigence: The problem that prompted Emma Watson to speak of is issue of unequal opportunities and treatments of women;which have been around for almost all of human civilization, and unfortunately still exists today. I feel as if she talking about this issue because in many foreign countries women are not given the same importance as men ; as people believe they cannot achieve as much. In the western industrialized countries people argue sexism is more hidden, however still evident by the gender wage gap.

Audience: The room where she gave the speech was full of people that generally supported her ideas, which is evident by their applause. The broader audience is well, the rest of the world. Her message clearly is directed to include everyone, so that it is everyone’s problem, so that the entire world can be a part of it.

Constraints:

-The negative few on feminism, as it is thought of as aggressive or abrasive.

-The wage gap

-Sexism around the world,